-
#1360 by SeeShells on 06 Jan, 2016 03:33
-
Ok, Lorentz. Unless the coax and heater power are feed through the Carbon fiber tube.
Ok, good info...but wonder if power leads next to it would enhance lorentz? Hmmmm.
Oh great, there goes my kickstarter budget out the window...like a spruce goose...
I seem to recall that SeeShell's pultruded beam did not have an exhorbitant price. Perhaps she could remind us how much $$$
That works for SeeShells, but it doesn't sound to me as if rfmwguy is working on the same budget.
Plus, if he does improve performance an order of magnitude I think he said somewhere, while it would not be the end of testing to confirm.., it would be out of the noise of his last build.
Edkt ok...linear expansion coefficient if the shell-stick is?
pultruded carbon epoxy has very small negative value of coefficient of thermal expansion (due to the carbon fiber), about - 1.5 *10^(-7) 1/°K
often quoted as ranging from
-0.1*10^(-6)/°K
to
-0.2 *10^(-6)/°K
That's why it is used for space applications
That's about 20 times smaller than the stiffest oven dried spruce you can find.
However, remember than carbon fiber is electrically conductive.
Btw, I do think your paper on the buckling aspects should be heretofore be referred to as the rodal effect, far more gracious than thermal buckling
-
#1361 by TheUberOverLord on 06 Jan, 2016 04:06
-
Like there is not enough speculation as to the possible causes of EM Drives being able to produce thrust.
I thought I would try to ask for input on yet another speculation:
Harmonics
We all know about what wind instruments are capable of making specific sounds. Many of us are also very aware of the value of a some violins like a Stradivarius violin over others because of the unique abilities it seems to have over other violins. Even in nature, Whales are capable of producing sounds that can travel great distance.
Is it possible that combined Harmonics could move mass in specific directions? The EM Drive being a closed cavity and not linear in width or even end points. Must have the ability to create many more Harmonics than typical Microwave transport methods.
Example: Imagine creating a laser using the shapes of EM Drives. What would the output of the laser be? Most likely much less than typical lasers are today. But has anyone applied EM Drive shapes and sizes to lasers ("Smaller versions of EM Drives using different input frequencies") and determined if any force was created besides the fact that most likely the laser would not have the same output?
I ask, because the shape of the EM Drive is unique to transporting Microwave frequencies as well as it being a closed cavity. Am wondering if any thrust produced could be because of any unique Harmonics being created by the shape and closed cavity it has? Of course, those Harmonics causing thrust. Would have tolerances that would need to be met, at the frequency injection ranges being used ("Including total bandwidth of input") combined with the shape and size of the EM Drive. Otherwise, one could see null thrust results.
Are there any tools like Meep as one example. That could and can provide the different Harmonics produced by a specific EM Drive, produced both internally and externally? If so, has anyone compared those results to other EM Drives?
As they say. One volcanic eruption, meteor strike, and other things. Could and can lead to an earthquake somewhere else, using the stored energy of that something else. Without being required to be the total cause and/or energy of that something else. But for sure, a contributing factor. I would call instances like that, As being caused by a Harmonic of the triggering event. Because without the triggering event. The other event, would have been delayed from taking place at the same time and moment.
It should be noted. That I also believe that the inverse could happen. Meaning that ("As one example of many") a pending earthquake could also be delayed from happening by some other triggering event.
Yet, no ownership by the triggering event or even the event itself, from a total energy perspective of all events combined. Can be claimed by any individual, specific event. AKA the "Harmonic Domino Effect".
Don -
#1362 by RFPlumber on 06 Jan, 2016 05:58
-
Progress update. First light frustum mode testing.
This was planned to be a very sad and frustrating post until I noticed that tiny ~2 dBm ripple on the narrow freq scan (see “Low-Q” attachment). This then changed everything! Anyway… here’s how things went:
Scalar freq scan (“Wide-scan” attachment) of reflected power via a -20 dBm coupler. Can see modes at 2.2 GHz and at 2.75 GHz. Do not see anything in between. Simulated TE012 freq was supposed to be 2.323 GHz. Nothing.
Lots of cursing about how my frustum construction sucks and/or how COMSOL simulation sucks to be that off the mark (2.2 vs 2.323 GHz while mode sensitivity was simulated to be ~5 MHz per 1 mm dimensions. The frustum, while ugly and flimsy, there is no way it is ~25 mm off at any dimension). Lots of frustration about not being able to test this using my existing RF amp, as it delivers only 4W at 2.2 GHz…
Estimating Q factor for the 2.2 GHz mode. Comes at around 300 (see “Low-Q”). More frustration about how it would be useless to test with such a low Q even if I had power at this frequency.
Doing COMSOL simulation around 2.2 and 2.75 GHz. Getting 2 distinct TM modes (2.198 and 2.725 GHz). Pretty damn close to what the freq scan is showing. Yet none of those 2 modes is TE. Wondering if my coax coupler is working the way it should be for TE modes… Re-examining the narrow freq scan… Noticing that tiny ripple… Re-running a very narrow scan around 2.3 GHz… And here it is (see S11-TE012) at 2.312 GHz (vs. 2.323 GHz simulated!). Just need to adjust and tune the coupler to get a better impedance match. The worst case Q appears to be 2000+ (taking 1 MHz width for 2312 MHz center). This is with just mildly cleaned copper; sulfuric acid hasn’t yet been used (waiting to be applied) and no silver coating. The idea is to test with lower Q and if there is any asymmetric force detected to then improve Q and see if there is any change to the force.
There’s hope that with a better tuned coupler this frustum will be testable!
-
#1363 by DaCunha on 06 Jan, 2016 07:33
-
My simplistic explanation of the phenomenon:
If, in the field equations
we keep in mind that the energy-momentum-tensor is composed of densities. (energy densities, energy flow density, strain density ) not absolute values.
and if we keep in mind that the classical expression for energy density of EM fields wem = 1/(8*pi)*( E² + B²)
is only an approximation for fields much weaker than the critical Schwinger field limit.
In the more exact model (Euler-Heisenberg energy density): There are terms proportional to E³, B³ and higher.
EH model is without doubt correct, it is experimentally verified in numerous experiments. (photon splitting in magnetic fields etc.)
Now at the smaller end surface there are: proportionally stronger fields but overproportionally (more than squared) larger energy densities -> overproportionally larger space-time curvature compared to the large end surface. As a result the frustrum could "fall" towards the smaller end.
-
#1364 by X_RaY on 06 Jan, 2016 10:27
-
Progress update. First light frustum mode testing.
Is there a possibility using this software to show how it looks in the complex plane (magnitude and phase or IQ)? It would be interesting because you could get a better feeling of what's wrong, either the resonance is huge overcoupled OR it's under coupled. Both possibilities could produce this tiny little peak in the magnitude plot.
This was planned to be a very sad and frustrating post until I noticed that tiny ~2 dBm ripple on the narrow freq scan (see “Low-Q” attachment). This then changed everything! Anyway… here’s how things went:
Scalar freq scan (“Wide-scan” attachment) of reflected power via a -20 dBm coupler. Can see modes at 2.2 GHz and at 2.75 GHz. Do not see anything in between. Simulated TE012 freq was supposed to be 2.323 GHz. Nothing.
Lots of cursing about how my frustum construction sucks and/or how COMSOL simulation sucks to be that off the mark (2.2 vs 2.323 GHz while mode sensitivity was simulated to be ~5 MHz per 1 mm dimensions. The frustum, while ugly and flimsy, there is no way it is ~25 mm off at any dimension). Lots of frustration about not being able to test this using my existing RF amp, as it delivers only 4W at 2.2 GHz…
Estimating Q factor for the 2.2 GHz mode. Comes at around 300 (see “Low-Q”). More frustration about how it would be useless to test with such a low Q even if I had power at this frequency.
Doing COMSOL simulation around 2.2 and 2.75 GHz. Getting 2 distinct TM modes (2.198 and 2.725 GHz). Pretty damn close to what the freq scan is showing. Yet none of those 2 modes is TE. Wondering if my coax coupler is working the way it should be for TE modes… Re-examining the narrow freq scan… Noticing that tiny ripple… Re-running a very narrow scan around 2.3 GHz… And here it is (see S11-TE012) at 2.312 GHz (vs. 2.323 GHz simulated!). Just need to adjust and tune the coupler to get a better impedance match. The worst case Q appears to be 2000+ (taking 1 MHz width for 2312 MHz center). This is with just mildly cleaned copper; sulfuric acid hasn’t yet been used (waiting to be applied) and no silver coating. The idea is to test with lower Q and if there is any asymmetric force detected to then improve Q and see if there is any change to the force.
There’s hope that with a better tuned coupler this frustum will be testable! -
#1365 by Notsosureofit on 06 Jan, 2016 11:37
-
My simplistic explanation of the phenomenon:
If, in the field equations
we keep in mind that the energy-momentum-tensor is composed of densities. (energy densities, energy flow density, strain density ) not absolute values.
and if we keep in mind that the classical expression for energy density of EM fields wem = 1/(8*pi)*( E² + B²)
is only an approximation for fields much weaker than the critical Schwinger field limit.
In the more exact model (Euler-Heisenberg energy density): There are terms proportional to E³, B³ and higher.
EH model is without doubt correct, it is experimentally verified in numerous experiments. (photon splitting in magnetic fields etc.)
Now at the smaller end surface there are: proportionally stronger fields but overproportionally (more than squared) larger energy densities -> overproportionally larger space-time curvature compared to the large end surface. As a result the frustrum could "fall" towards the smaller end.
Any expansions of GR into higher (than Pauli matrices) order (quarternions, etc.) show what are believed to be gravitational currents.
Note: It's the photons that fall.
-
#1366 by TheTraveller on 06 Jan, 2016 11:59
-
Progress update. First light frustum mode testing.....
Hi RfPlumber,
Could you please take a minute and explain your test setup and identify the black box?
Phil
-
#1367 by Rodal on 06 Jan, 2016 12:14
-
My simplistic explanation of the phenomenon:
If, in the field equations
we keep in mind that the energy-momentum-tensor is composed of densities. (energy densities, energy flow density, strain density ) not absolute values.
and if we keep in mind that the classical expression for energy density of EM fields wem = 1/(8*pi)*( E² + B²)
is only an approximation for fields much weaker than the critical Schwinger field limit.
In the more exact model (Euler-Heisenberg energy density): There are terms proportional to E³, B³ and higher.
EH model is without doubt correct, it is experimentally verified in numerous experiments. (photon splitting in magnetic fields etc.)
Now at the smaller end surface there are: proportionally stronger fields but overproportionally (more than squared) larger energy densities -> overproportionally larger space-time curvature compared to the large end surface. As a result the frustrum could "fall" towards the smaller end.
We need a calculation, at least an approximate "back of the envelope" calculation to see whether these energy density higher order terms terms are significant (*). For example, when Marco Frasca (user StrongGR) looked at conventional General Relativity effects in the NSF EM Drive thread (please see http://arxiv.org/abs/1505.06917v1 ) he found out that conventional GR (not Euler-Heisenberg) terms, are significant only when very close to the apex of the cone.
But these designs by Roger Shawyer have precluded anybody from testing such a cone: the tested designs have a small end that is quite large, comparable in diameter to the large end. Actually R. Shawyer has a prescription claiming that there is a cut-off limit that prevents the small end from being too small (Shawyer's prescription does not make sense to me).
Frasca calculated the conventional GR effect to be extremely small, about 10^(-22) Newtons, many orders of magnitude smaller than the claimed forces:Quote from: Marco FrascaThis effect appears to be really small. If we assume a cavity with r1 = 0.025 m, r2 = 0.1 m
____________
and h = 0.1 m, ... the given thrust is T = 5.945503835·10−22 N
(*) (The higher order perturbative terms were first derived by Euler first with Kockle prior to the fully nonlinear closed-form expression with Heissenberg in his Ph.D, thesis, describing the non-linear dynamics of electromagnetic fields in vacuum, formalizing the treatment of the quantum fluctuations inherent in the Dirac sea picture of the QED vacuum)
(*) I remember Weisskopf ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Victor_Weisskopf ) teaching undergraduate Physics at MIT (great teacher and a true gentleman !). Glad to see his contribution in simplifying and re-deriving the Euler-Heissenberg action, and describing the electromagnetic properties of the quantum vacuum.
(*) Robert Karplus and Maurice Neuman ( “The Scattering of Light by Light”, Phys. Rev. 83, 776 (1951)) calculated the full photon-photon (light-light) scattering amplitude of the Euler-Heissenberg terms. The effect is perturbatively very small and has not yet been directly observed in experiments.
See: http://inspirehep.net/record/1088411/files/arXiv%3A1202.1557.pdf
(**) While vacuum electron-positron pair production was a definite, and quantitative, prediction in the Heisenberg-Euler paper [following the work of Sauter], the necessary electric field strength is so astronomical that it appeared out of experimental reach
(***) The Schwinger limit is a scale above which the electromagnetic field is expected to become nonlinear. But the electric fields present in the EM Drive experiments are much smaller than the Schwinger limit (10^18 V/m). Therefore quantum mechanics for the EM Drive experiments should be linear, and therefore the higher order perturbative terms of the nonlinear Euler-Heisenberg theory should be very negligible (unless the field would be close to a singularity like the apex of the cone, but no EM Drive experiment has been conducted with a cone geometry, they all stop way short of the apex, due to Shawyer's prescription).
(****) Notice that Marco Frasca's paper (http://arxiv.org/abs/1505.06917v1) on page 14 considers a frequency of ν = 210.423537 GHz instead of the frequency tested by NASA of ~ 2 GHz (which is 100 times smaller).
Also
the NASA tested geometry had the following dimensions:
r1 = 0.305316 m (12.020 in)
r2 = 0.537845 m (21.175 in)
halfAngleConeDegrees = 14.8125 degrees
while Frasca considers the following geometry instead:
r1 = 0.025 m (0.984 in)
r2 = 0.1 m (3.937 in)
In other words, Marco Frasca's calculated example in page 14 of his paper (http://arxiv.org/abs/1505.06917v1) is for a frustum of a cone that is much closer to the apex of the cone, with the small spherical radius being only 0.025 m (1 inch) which is 12 times smaller than in the NASA tested geometry
where the spherical radii r1 and r2 are defined as follows:
-
#1368 by Notsosureofit on 06 Jan, 2016 13:46
-
Good to remember that Marco Frasca's paper is describing a completely different, but related, experiment.
-
#1369 by Rodal on 06 Jan, 2016 13:58
-
I would think that $150 for a pultruded carbon-epoxy rod (with a higher modulus of elasticity than wood and with a coefficient of thermal expansion 20 times smaller than oven dried spruce -in the grain direction-, and not significantly affected by moisture in the environment) may not be DIY budget-busting...
Not too bad, I spent about $150....
I seem to recall that SeeShell's pultruded beam did not have an exhorbitant price. Perhaps she could remind us how much $$$
That works for SeeShells, but it doesn't sound to me as if rfmwguy is working on the same budget.
Plus, if he does improve performance an order of magnitude I think he said somewhere, while it would not be the end of testing to confirm.., it would be out of the noise of his last build.
http://www.cstsales.com/products.html
Need to avoid conducting electricity through it to eliminate it as a source of Lorentz forces... -
#1370 by rfcavity on 06 Jan, 2016 14:15
-
Progress update. First light frustum mode testing.
This was planned to be a very sad and frustrating post until I noticed that tiny ~2 dBm ripple on the narrow freq scan (see “Low-Q” attachment). This then changed everything! Anyway… here’s how things went:
Scalar freq scan (“Wide-scan” attachment) of reflected power via a -20 dBm coupler. Can see modes at 2.2 GHz and at 2.75 GHz. Do not see anything in between. Simulated TE012 freq was supposed to be 2.323 GHz. Nothing.
Lots of cursing about how my frustum construction sucks and/or how COMSOL simulation sucks to be that off the mark (2.2 vs 2.323 GHz while mode sensitivity was simulated to be ~5 MHz per 1 mm dimensions. The frustum, while ugly and flimsy, there is no way it is ~25 mm off at any dimension). Lots of frustration about not being able to test this using my existing RF amp, as it delivers only 4W at 2.2 GHz…
Estimating Q factor for the 2.2 GHz mode. Comes at around 300 (see “Low-Q”). More frustration about how it would be useless to test with such a low Q even if I had power at this frequency.
Doing COMSOL simulation around 2.2 and 2.75 GHz. Getting 2 distinct TM modes (2.198 and 2.725 GHz). Pretty damn close to what the freq scan is showing. Yet none of those 2 modes is TE. Wondering if my coax coupler is working the way it should be for TE modes… Re-examining the narrow freq scan… Noticing that tiny ripple… Re-running a very narrow scan around 2.3 GHz… And here it is (see S11-TE012) at 2.312 GHz (vs. 2.323 GHz simulated!). Just need to adjust and tune the coupler to get a better impedance match. The worst case Q appears to be 2000+ (taking 1 MHz width for 2312 MHz center). This is with just mildly cleaned copper; sulfuric acid hasn’t yet been used (waiting to be applied) and no silver coating. The idea is to test with lower Q and if there is any asymmetric force detected to then improve Q and see if there is any change to the force.
There’s hope that with a better tuned coupler this frustum will be testable!
One reason your Q is low is because of the huge seam where the cylinder joins the end plate. That you can see it clearly from this far away is bad news. This will kill any resonance.
Usually when making a cavity we used thick walls and tapped bolt holes. Then we secure with a pipe wrench and finally an air gun. Each hit on the air gun would make Q jump up. Thousands of Q is sensitive.
Please see this for reference
http://www.phys.aoyama.ac.jp/~w3-kitano/photo/cavity.jpg
Search cavity resonator or rf cavity on image search to see more examples. -
#1371 by StrongGR on 06 Jan, 2016 14:19
-
...
When taking into account the actual geometry of tested EM Drives (that have fairly large small ends) Frasca calculated the conventional GR effect to be extremely small, about 10^(-22) Newtons, many orders of magnitude smaller than the claimed forces:Quote from: Marco FrascaThis effect appears to be really small. If we assume a cavity with r1 = 0.025 m, r2 = 0.1 m
____________
and h = 0.1 m, ... the given thrust is T = 5.945503835·10−22 N
...
(****) Notice that Marco Frasca's paper (http://arxiv.org/abs/1505.06917v1) on page 14 considers a frequency of ν = 210.423537 GHz instead of the frequency tested by NASA of ~ 2 GHz (which is 100 times smaller). Not clear whether this is a typo in Marco Frasca's paper (otherwise not clear why would he calculate for a frequency 100 times higher than tested)
Dear Jose',
I answered in my blog at your comment https://marcofrasca.wordpress.com/2015/11/01/news-on-propulsion-at-nasa/#comments. It is not a typo but a frequency of the cavity possibly excited, the greater the better. I had no experiment in mind at that time but rather I was interested in the evaluation of the order of magnitude of the effect.
My current view is that people at EW have this contribution but is overwhelmed by something more mundane. I am eager to hear from them as soon as they get their work published. Meanwhile, I exchanged some mail with Paul March and he said to me that this will take some time.
Finally, I share your current view about EMDrive recently read on reddit. I have got an interview about this matter and you can read it at (spanish) http://www.elespanol.com/ciencia/20151120/80741967_0.html.
Marco -
#1372 by TheTraveller on 06 Jan, 2016 14:23
-
One reason your Q is low is because of the huge seam where the cylinder joins the end plate. That you can see it clearly from this far away is bad news. This will kill any resonance.
Usually when making a cavity we used thick walls and tapped bolt holes. Then we secure with a pipe wrench and finally an air gun. Each hit on the air gun would make Q jump up. Thousands of Q is sensitive.
Please see this for reference
http://www.phys.aoyama.ac.jp/~w3-kitano/photo/cavity.jpg
Search cavity resonator or rf cavity on image search to see more examples.
Very shinny is GOOD. -
#1373 by Rodal on 06 Jan, 2016 14:24
-
...
When taking into account the actual geometry of tested EM Drives (that have fairly large small ends) Frasca calculated the conventional GR effect to be extremely small, about 10^(-22) Newtons, many orders of magnitude smaller than the claimed forces:Quote from: Marco FrascaThis effect appears to be really small. If we assume a cavity with r1 = 0.025 m, r2 = 0.1 m
____________
and h = 0.1 m, ... the given thrust is T = 5.945503835·10−22 N
...
(****) Notice that Marco Frasca's paper (http://arxiv.org/abs/1505.06917v1) on page 14 considers a frequency of ν = 210.423537 GHz instead of the frequency tested by NASA of ~ 2 GHz (which is 100 times smaller). Not clear whether this is a typo in Marco Frasca's paper (otherwise not clear why would he calculate for a frequency 100 times higher than tested)
Dear Jose',
I answered in my blog at your comment https://marcofrasca.wordpress.com/2015/11/01/news-on-propulsion-at-nasa/#comments. It is not a typo but a frequency of the cavity possibly excited, the greater the better. I had no experiment in mind at that time but rather I was interested in the evaluation of the order of magnitude of the effect.
My current view is that people at EW have this contribution but is overwhelmed by something more mundane. I am eager to hear from them as soon as they get their work published. Meanwhile, I exchanged some mail with Paul March and he said to me that this will take some time.
Finally, I share your current view about EMDrive recently read on reddit. I have got an interview about this matter and you can read it at (spanish) http://www.elespanol.com/ciencia/20151120/80741967_0.html.
Marco
Dear Marco,
Thanks so much for answering
_______
EDIT (added afterwards):
1) My understanding is that your example in page 14 is with dimensions and frequency exploring the effect, and that using NASA's actual dimensions and frequencies, the calculation using General Relativity would result in a force even smaller than 10^(-22) N.
2) For clarification to the general audience, I have not written in Reddit, I write in NSF. My view on the claims of EM Drive is skeptical. Apparently there are a few people in Reddit that read my writings here, and quote my writings in Reddit, which I very kindly appreciate.
-
#1374 by StrongGR on 06 Jan, 2016 14:36
-
Dear Marco,
Thanks so much for answering
My understanding is that your example in page 14 is with dimensions and frequency exploring the effect, and that using NASA's actual dimensions and frequencies, the calculation using General Relativity would result in a force even smaller than 10^(-22) N.
Dear Jose',
You are welcome.
That is exactly what I did. This is also the reason why other people looked for non-standard contributions to general relativity to get the right order of magnitude. My personal interest resides in the possibility to get gravitational effects in a tabletop experiment. My view is that people at EW could have succeeded at this opening the way to some kind of space-time engineering.
Marco -
#1375 by X_RaY on 06 Jan, 2016 14:37
-
This is not the case for TE01 resonances. There is no current flow between the sidewall and the endplate. Even if there is a small air gap its not critical for this mode shape. Of course the gap will lower the Q with respect to radiation losses, but not that much that it "kill the resonance".Progress update. First light frustum mode testing.
This was planned to be a very sad and frustrating post until I noticed that tiny ~2 dBm ripple on the narrow freq scan (see “Low-Q” attachment). This then changed everything! Anyway… here’s how things went:
Scalar freq scan (“Wide-scan” attachment) of reflected power via a -20 dBm coupler. Can see modes at 2.2 GHz and at 2.75 GHz. Do not see anything in between. Simulated TE012 freq was supposed to be 2.323 GHz. Nothing.
Lots of cursing about how my frustum construction sucks and/or how COMSOL simulation sucks to be that off the mark (2.2 vs 2.323 GHz while mode sensitivity was simulated to be ~5 MHz per 1 mm dimensions. The frustum, while ugly and flimsy, there is no way it is ~25 mm off at any dimension). Lots of frustration about not being able to test this using my existing RF amp, as it delivers only 4W at 2.2 GHz…
Estimating Q factor for the 2.2 GHz mode. Comes at around 300 (see “Low-Q”). More frustration about how it would be useless to test with such a low Q even if I had power at this frequency.
Doing COMSOL simulation around 2.2 and 2.75 GHz. Getting 2 distinct TM modes (2.198 and 2.725 GHz). Pretty damn close to what the freq scan is showing. Yet none of those 2 modes is TE. Wondering if my coax coupler is working the way it should be for TE modes… Re-examining the narrow freq scan… Noticing that tiny ripple… Re-running a very narrow scan around 2.3 GHz… And here it is (see S11-TE012) at 2.312 GHz (vs. 2.323 GHz simulated!). Just need to adjust and tune the coupler to get a better impedance match. The worst case Q appears to be 2000+ (taking 1 MHz width for 2312 MHz center). This is with just mildly cleaned copper; sulfuric acid hasn’t yet been used (waiting to be applied) and no silver coating. The idea is to test with lower Q and if there is any asymmetric force detected to then improve Q and see if there is any change to the force.
There’s hope that with a better tuned coupler this frustum will be testable!
One reason your Q is low is because of the huge seam where the cylinder joins the end plate. That you can see it clearly from this far away is bad news. This will kill any resonance.
Usually when making a cavity we used thick walls and tapped bolt holes. Then we secure with a pipe wrench and finally an air gun. Each hit on the air gun would make Q jump up. Thousands of Q is sensitive.
Please see this for reference
http://www.phys.aoyama.ac.jp/~w3-kitano/photo/cavity.jpg
Search cavity resonator or rf cavity on image search to see more examples.
-
#1376 by StrongGR on 06 Jan, 2016 14:48
-
...
2) For clarification to the general audience, I have not written in Reddit, I write in NSF. My view on the claims of EM Drive is skeptical. Apparently there are a few people in Reddit that read and understand my writings here, and quote in Reddit, which I kindly appreciate.
I know but someone reported your take at https://www.reddit.com/r/EmDrive/comments/3ytjis/dr_rodal_is_on_a_critique_streak/. I agree with your skepticism but I keep my eyes wide open for the work at EW. -
#1377 by Rodal on 06 Jan, 2016 14:56
-
I fully share your views "skeptical but keeping our eyes open" excellent way to put it
...
2) For clarification to the general audience, I have not written in Reddit, I write in NSF. My view on the claims of EM Drive is skeptical. Apparently there are a few people in Reddit that read and understand my writings here, and quote in Reddit, which I kindly appreciate.
I know but someone reported your take at https://www.reddit.com/r/EmDrive/comments/3ytjis/dr_rodal_is_on_a_critique_streak/. I agree with your skepticism but I keep my eyes wide open for the work at EW. .
-
#1378 by Tellmeagain on 06 Jan, 2016 17:34
-
Finally, I share your current view about EMDrive recently read on reddit. I have got an interview about this matter and you can read it at (spanish) http://www.elespanol.com/ciencia/20151120/80741967_0.html.
Marco
That report wrote by Javier Yanes is by far the most comprehensive one among those that reported the October 31 Paul March NSF post. He cited our work and actually wrote to me for my opinions. None other reporters ever bothered to do that. Of course, Google can translate that web page into English,
https://translate.google.com/translate?hl=en&sl=auto&tl=en&u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.elespanol.com%2Fciencia%2F20151120%2F80741967_0.html -
#1379 by rfmwguy on 06 Jan, 2016 17:47
-
Hello Mr. Li. I have a quick question for you considering your experience with Lorentz testing. A conductive carbon-fiber tube of 53 inches length carries adjacent to it the 4 kVDC/480 mA anode voltage, ground and 3.3 VDC/10A filament current.
Finally, I share your current view about EMDrive recently read on reddit. I have got an interview about this matter and you can read it at (spanish) http://www.elespanol.com/ciencia/20151120/80741967_0.html.
Marco
That report wrote by Javier Yanes is by far the most comprehensive one among those that reported the October 31 Paul March NSF post. He cited our work and actually wrote to me for my opinions. None other reporters ever bothered to do that. Of course, Google can translate that web page into English,
https://translate.google.com/translate?hl=en&sl=auto&tl=en&u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.elespanol.com%2Fciencia%2F20151120%2F80741967_0.html
Based on your previous testing, what would the horizontal and vertical Lorentz force be with the wires themselves then with close placement next to a carbon fiber rod?
